Balance control with collaboration – First Draft

To solve tough problems, we need the active participation of a diverse group of people. Instead of control residing only with managers, each person on a team should have the authority and responsibility to contribute fully. Rather than command them from above, the team leader should facilitate the team’s efforts.

Since the industrial revolution we’ve needed a lot of science to deal with the changing nature of work. Science in the form of organizational theory helped us structure giant corporations. And the scientific method made time-motion studies possible which vastly increased manufacturing speed. Frederick Winslow Taylor wrote a book in 1911 about the latter field, appropriately titled, The Principles of Scientific Management.

These days our work increasingly consists of complex problems that cannot be divided into simple, repeatable tasks. Take, for example, the Global Earth Observation System of Systems in which 60 countries have agreed to participate in a 10-year effort to collect and share thousands of measurements of the Earth. This data has a wide variety of applications, from monitoring pollution to predicting the weather. But this requires hundreds of scientists with different agendas to agree on thousands of decisions. As one of the project leaders says, “‘We have been able to make computers work together. The challenge of the 21st century is to get people to work together…’ noting that the problem will be overcoming bureaucracy, politics, and turf.”

Science alone wouldn’t have a chance to make this project work.

The work practices we used throughout the 20th Century are still important and useful. But for complex, 21st Century work they’re not sufficient. Because the problems are bigger, they require more people with more skills to solve them. These complex problems require the combined effort of people with complimentary experience, knowledge, and ways of thinking.

Working involving new combinations of people requires effective collaboration.

Collaboration requires each person on a team to have the opportunity to drive the processes and outcomes.

In other words, success with complex problems depends on sharing control with others. Joe Kraus, the founder of Excite and JotSpot has said, “Very early on, the founders of startups make an important choice. Do they want success or control? …I’ve picked success. And success implies giving up control – hiring people who are much better than you, or being willing to be the janitor if that’s what’s required.”

Of course, groups that have no leadership at all can easily slide into a death spiral of debate and fail to accomplish anything. Success today requires balancing control in the form of management with collaboration in the form of facilitation.

Try it now
On an interdisciplinary team, assign a team lead that is a contributing member of the team, but also has responsibility for two critical functions:

  1. Facilitate the process – This is an art in itself, but it includes eliciting each team member’s best work, resolving conflicts, and finding alternative paths when the team gets stuck.
  2. Make executive decisions – There will be times when team members will have opposing opinions and can’t resolve them. The team lead synthesizes everyone’s viewpoints, weighs the project priorities, and makes the tough decision, but only when absolutely necessary.
Published
Categorized as Evolve

Numbers can be prototypes

Something I knew on a surface level but didn’t internalize until taking a Financial Modeling class was that numbers can be prototypes.

When financial people build models in a spreadsheet, they’re building prototypes. Just as a designer might sketch on paper or carve a piece of foam, financial modelers will quickly sketch in a spreadsheet (or on the back of a napkin).

What’s odd here is that designers usually think of numbers as representing exact quantities. When a designer writes 100,000 he means 100,000, whereas a financial modeler may mean 100,000 +/-20,000, or she may mean on the order of magnitude of 105 and not 106.

The opposite gap in understanding is true as well. Designers are often hesitant to show clients an early design in the fear the client will misunderstand which aspects are high fidelity and which are low fidelity.

An aptitude for building and understanding different kinds of models seems to be an important skill for integrated thinkers. The question for me is, how can we develop this aptitude, and how to teach it to others? My approaches so far include:

  1. Gradually move from similar skills you do well to new skills: for example, when learning financial modeling you might start by sketching a graph of the variables, or writing out the financial scenario in prose format, and then turning that into a spreadsheet.
  2. Play simulation games: which model many different kinds of variables and interactions in a dynamic, interactive way, allowing you to iterate and learn. Making our own simulations will become an important teaching skill.
  3. Work with someone who already does both well: these are rare, but they do exist.

Burning questions

I had an interesting discussion today with a graduate student who is honing in on a thesis question in the intersection of design, innovation, and business. Along the way I remembered I had composed a list of questions that came up during a project last year. These are not necessarily great thesis questions, but they’re certainly things I’d like to know more about, and worth releasing just in case someone is inspired to work on them…

  • How can we introduce the uncertainty of wicked problems into organizations accustomed to certainty gained through analysis and hierarchical decision making?
  • How does top-down strategic innovation mesh with bottom-up product innovation?
  • How can teams seamlessly fuse analysis and creativity?
  • Which combinations of skill sets help individuals be innovative?
  • How can design theory be applied to business planning and strategy?
  • In each of our industries, which skills and techniques are proving successful?
  • In each of our situations, which language helps us communicate with colleagues most effectively?
  • How does culture determine what kinds of products and services are possible, and vice versa?
  • Are there attitudes in our fields that hinder innovation?
  • How do organizations accustomed to making decisions based on hierarchy or quantitative analysis alone become more customer-centered and make use of qualitative analysis?
  • Can we teach process in a heuristic, modular way that makes it easier for people to use a toolbox of processes as easily as they use a toolbox of techniques?

Shiny, happy, innovative people

…the business world is full of highly touted prescriptions for being more innovative… in my experience, few solutions actually address what I believe to be a fundamental enabler of innovative behavior in organizations… The key to unleashing innovative behavior is asking the question “how can I help each person in my organization achieve a state of happiness on a daily basis?” In other words, help happiness bloom, and innovative behavior will follow.


Happiness and the Art of Innovation

I’d say more is required — innovation is more than just working well, it’s taking risks to try the untried, which takes moxie — but the essence of this message is spot on: happiness is a prerequisite for good work, and managers are responsible for creating an environment where that’s possible (you can test this by asking, “What if you knew everything there was to know about innovation, but you worked for Dilbert’s boss?“). The Knowing-Doing Gap argues this at length, refuting the idea that mean-spirited management makes better workers.

Krugman’s Rules for Research

Paul Krugman, Princeton economist and New York Times columnist, has some interesting small pieces on his site, like How I Work which includes his Rules for Research…

  1. Listen to the Gentiles, Pay attention to what intelligent people are saying, even if they do not have your customs or speak your analytical language.
  2. Question the question, In general, if people in a field have bogged down on questions that seem very hard, it is a good idea to ask whether they are really working on the right questions. Often some other question is not only easier to answer but actually more interesting!
  3. Dare to be silly, What I believe is that the age of creative silliness is not past. Virtue, as an economic theorist, does not consist in squeezing the last drop of blood out of assumptions that have come to seem natural because they have been used in a few hundred earlier papers. If a new set of assumptions seems to yield a valuable set of insights, then never mind if they seem strange.
  4. Simplify, simplify, The strategy is: always try to express your ideas in the simplest possible model. The act of stripping down to this minimalist model will force you to get to the essence of what you are trying to say (and will also make obvious to you those situations in which you actually have nothing to say).

Agile publishing

37 Signals’ new book Getting Real is out, and looks like a great read about applying agile techniques and spirit to web app development. It’s agile both in the content and in having small chapters, something we’ve seen in books like Godin’s Purple Cow and what I’m working on by re-interpreting agile principles for general managers in Evolve.

Who has time to read long books?

Published
Categorized as Agile

Cost-to-serve

Cost-to-serve is defined as the total supply chain cost from origin to destination, it incorporates such factors as inventory stocking, packaging and re-packaging, shipping, and returns processing.

So explains Tim Laseter, Elliot Rabinovich, and Angela Huang in S+B. I’d say products that have poor cost-to-serve profiles, like shoes, just haven’t redesigned their businesses to take advantage of online opportunities. For example, if shoe return rates are poor for fit reasons, more consideration needs to be put into consistent fit. This was never necessary before because we always bought shoes in a place we could try them on. Consumers may show loyalty to a particular brand, style, and even model given the possible price and convenience advantages of ordering online. Shoe manufacturers may find advantages in not redesigning every model every season, making it easier for consumers to re-order a shoe that fits, and profiting both in lower development costs and higher loyalty rates.

An example of redesigning the business to take advantage of e-commerce is Design Within Reach, which has showrooms to market items that are hard to evaluate online, and an online store and paper catalog for everything else.

WOW — I DeSIGN

Dr. Charles Burnette’s IDeSiGN — Seven Ways of Design Thinking is the best thing I’ve seen in a while, a curriculum for teaching children how to pursue their goals using different ways of thinking.

This is designing. It is a process of creative and critical thinking that allows information and ideas to be organized, decisions to be made, situations to be improved, and knowledge to be gained. Purposeful thought and action is the basis for all human achievement and is found in all subject disciplines. Its objective is to change information,understandings or circumstances, to preferred or improved states or to create something entirely new. Because there are many possible outcomes from design thinking it is not easily automated like purposeful thought that has become habitual or has a predetermined result, such as solving a puzzle that has only one solution. Design thinking is a more powerful, comprehensive and creative form of purposeful thinking that can be applied to interpret or resolve complex, confusing, or unanticipated situations whenever and however they occur.

Innovation in poached eggs

Surrounded by the twin mystiques of brunch and Hollandaise, Elaine Corn offers a better, simpler cooking method (boil water in a shallow skillet, add vinegar and salt, slide the eggs in and turn the heat off, let cook in covered skillet for three minutes). I can tear that page out of my Betty Crocker cookbook now.

Published
Categorized as Cooking

Use simple tools

The tools we use to create and communicate should be so easy to use we rarely ever think about them. With simple tools we naturally focus on what the tool allows us to do.

The famous typography designer Matthew Carter has said that when you read you should not see the letters on the page, you should see through the type to the message. If printed type was the tool we’ve used to communicate for thousands of years, today we do our jobs using mobile electronics, software user interfaces, rapid prototyping devices, and so on.

And yet, as I write this in 2006, I still can’t use my computer to make an appointment with someone working for a different company and know that the meeting will appear on both our calendars. I may spend time trying, but I know this everyday task is still completed more easily (and with more accuracy) if I simply call the other person and schedule the appointment over the phone.

If your calendar software makes it difficult to schedule a meeting, use something simpler. If it isn’t obvious how to use the functions of your mobile device, get something easier. These tools should be just as transparent as the type you’re looking at now. Communicating and executing our ideas is too important to let technology get in the way.

Robust tools are seductive, but their complexity quickly results in diminishing returns. Adopt tools with as many features as you need, and no more. Usually a few essential features will enable you to do many things well.

Try it now
As you go through your days, write down a list of every tool you use to create and communicate. Mark those that are cumbersome, and find an easier replacement for each cumbersome tool. Do the same with your team.

Published
Categorized as Evolve

Thought for Friday: Relax

Two researchers at Pace University here in New York compared results from dozens of studies of thousands of employees in 21 occupations to find which exhibit more stressors. Did fire fighters and police officers come out on top? No. Financial and business people did. We worry more about poor job fit, management problems, and work/home tradeoffs. Whereas police expect and even crave thrills.

With that in mind, here’s a couple thoughts going into your weekend:

The trouble with the rat race is that even if you win, you’re still a rat.” — Lily Tomlin

“Listen: We are here on Earth to fart around. Don’t let anybody tell you any different.” — Kurt Vonnegut

Frontiers in lower customer service costs

As Vonage prepares for their IPO, are they enacting measures to improve their cost structure?

Your email is important to us but due to high email volume we are unable to accept your email at this time. For immediate assistance, please visit the Help section of our web site to search our library for related articles…

Published
Categorized as Companies

Architecture and employees

I wonder if this flashy, animated building facade — very not-financial services — changes employees’ perception of Lehman Brothers?

Could it backfire and make employees more cynical?

Published
Categorized as Culture

Gain, v3.0

The new & improved Gain — the AIGA journal of business and design — has just re-launched. Congrats to Karen, Jeff, Liz, and the gang.